The Irish language is failing.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I read somewhere - probably here on Boards - that Peig was heavily edited, maybe by Peig's nephew (as she was illiterate) to be more authentically conservative or something.

I would hazard a guess that it may have been edited to make it suitable for reading by schoolchildren. Maybe it had references to farm animals getting it on or something.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for the off topic comment. Now what about that awful business of "forcing" kids all over Scandinavia to learn more than one Scandinavian language, and probably English as well?

I presume that's left the world with generations of Swedes, Danes and Norwegians with a burning hatred for all other Scandinavian languages, not to mention English?

Yep. Thought not. :rolleyes:

They don't. The Scadanavian langauges (with the exception of Finnish) are similiar enough to the point that they don't need to. English is taught as a nessecary skill to progress in the world.

The Danes are thinking of escalating English to an official langauge alongside Danish.

It;s a moot point though, because English is not the mother tongue in Scandanvia.

Reiver wrote: »

That's because the Sami are entirely a different people, not just confined to Norway. Their language reflects their origin, beyond the Urals.

A minority language with an origin outside the country that is spoken by people in a geographic area that encompasses more than one country. How unlike Irish.

LordSutch wrote: »

Irish is not our spoken language, this despite the newly formed state (post 1922) introducing mandatory Irish lessons for all Irish children, in a futile attempt to make the whole population speak Irish. So out went Shakespeare & Science and in came the teaching of Irish (with an iron rod) well actually a meter stick, a three foot long cane, a ruler or a fist, so that Irish could be beaten into each and every pupil.

(suppresses the urge to say something unladylike)

I just want to mention something I know from being a teenager in the US.

When I was that age, I lived in an area that was minority Cherokee. If you stopped an average person on the street and asked how much Cherokee ancestry they had (apropos of nothing, I have none myself), a surprising number would identify as "part Cherokee" and claim to be proud of their heritage. How many of them actually spoke or wrote Tsalagi Gawonihisdi? Well, that's another question.

A Cherokee Nation does exist; I capitalize it because it's an official name of an organization, a revival of the tribe that was almost completely wiped out. It currently has about three times as many members as the population of the Gaeltacht. It has self-governance, an expanding robust tribal economy, citizenship and immigration laws (along with a significant "migrant problem" of people who don't technically qualify for citizenship), an outreach program for Cherokee people who are outside the tribal jurisdiction, a huge number of children leaving to seek employment outside the tribal boundaries, and, most relevantly, a strong and growing push to use Tsalagi as the official language of government, business, and culture. However, a lot of what I hear "assimilated" Cherokee say about their language is echoing in my ears today.

Why do so few Cherokee (~17% of the tribe, along with many others who identify as Cherokee but don't qualify for tribal membership) speak Tsalagi today? Well, we have the missionary schools to blame for that. Young Cherokee were forbidden to speak their tribal language at school on pain of actual torture (no nun was ever as inventive as an Oklahoma schoolteacher). They were forbidden to speak their language or adopt their native cultural ways by laws passed in the 1800s. Frightened parents forbade the use of Tsalagi at home. The courts made it illegal to testify in any language but English. It took Sequoyah in 1821 to even formulate a written language in which the tribe could record their cultural documents and around which the tribe could rally. Years later tribe members were given dual US citizenship by treaty, though it took well into the 20th century for the tribe to gain recognition as a sovereign entity.

Currently the schools in Cherokee areas do teach Tsalagi, and tribe members do pass it down to their children at home as a native language. Tsalagi is the official tribal language. It appears alongside English on official documents and signs. The Cherokee government provide translation services and have invested heavily in immersion learning programs. It is absolutely true that many Cherokee people deride these efforts as isolationist and irrelevant to living in the modern US economy. Of course, it's also true that many Cherokee see tribal status itself that way and they think that it is harmful to resist assimilation. Some of them think that the time spent learning Cherokee could be more profitably spent learning things that make the tribe's young people more economically competitive.

The thing is, few people who identify as Cherokee-heritage are actually against the effort to preserve their tribal language and culture. There do not seem to be abusive teachers beating the language into them like the abusive missionary teachers who used to (and occasionally still) beat the language out of them. I know that religion played a huge role in depriving Cherokee people of their heritage and culture. I know a lot of appropriators who adopt what they think of as "American Indian" beliefs and religious practices, but I also know tribe members who add what they consider to be tribal religion to their own worldviews along with other aspects of the culture. In any event, these days there is no widespread effort to "forget", even among assimilated people. Though the tribe members may well be surprised that non-Cherokee people might want to speak and read Tsalagi, and might rightfully question their motives for doing so, once the non-Cherokee proves that they have bona fide ties to the tribe and to its culture, few would discourage them from learning. In fact, the ones who would be the most discouraging would be those who think that "outsiders" should not be allowed to participate at all.

In too many cases of cultural annihilation in the past few centuries, missionaries and religion (whether the Bible, the Koran, or the Vedas) have been most heavily involved. I am convinced that the blame needs to be placed at their feet for the evident distress that so many people feel at reclaiming their rightful national heritage and identity. When you're taught that your very identity is sinful and expressing it has unpleasant consequences now and hereafter, naturally you will discourage your children and your friends from wanting to adopt it. I know that the people who are discouraging me from learning Irish mean well. They've unconsciously absorbed their parents' and grandparents' fears. It's as though they're blaming Irish culture and national identity itself, instead of the religious and political forces that have tried to crush it, for the fact that it now needs to be revived.

I could understand if Irish people told me to give up because "you're not Irish". Fair cop, I'm not Irish, even though I live in Ireland, married into an Irish family, and want to become a citizen once I qualify. But I just can't understand "eh, who cares, the Irish themselves don't, so why bother at all".

(As always, thank you for your sincere efforts to help me understand. I don't have an agenda, other than a humanist one of people being at peace with themselves and the world they live in. Oh, and the fact that I feel ignorant not knowing how to pronounce every damn street sign.)

Speedwell wrote: »

When you're taught that your very identity is sinful and expressing it has unpleasant consequences now and hereafter, naturally you will discourage your children and your friends from wanting to adopt it.

That is a whole load of text so I'll try to give it a proper read latter on but this bit stuck out. Lots of Irish people have unhealthy neurosis about their place in the world and language feeds into that. When you have friends (drunkenly and with complete sincerity) tell you about the shame they feel for supporting an English Premier League club you can tell everything isn't right in the countries head.

Deleted User wrote: »

"Our" indeed.

You're a member of the Royal British Legion and the Orange Order? Or just the RBL? You're definitely on record many times as describing the Irish struggle for independence as "terrorism" - like this gem: "the 1916 rising was a terrorist operation" - and the British Empire as laudable and, if I recall, you're one of the biggest cheerleaders for their Empire every time the annual two-month long poppy war glorifications get going. You also never miss an opportunity to mention your hatred for, well, anything Irish and get upset when people don't say "British Isles" or even when you cannot see the Union Jack flying from Irish ports. You compose posts telling the Irish to "Be British, be proud", as you are of your "Unionist/British" identity.

It all sounds just so, well, desperate.

Next thing you will be saying he isn't even a catholic.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, so opposing bigoted jingoistic British imperialism is now equivalent to opposing Protestantism? You're letting the mask slip. I bet you really feel betrayed by those Protestant Irish republicans.

You don't seem to know what bigotry or jingoism is. Stating that your heritage in British or Unionist or whatever doesn't even come close.

But back on topic: you wanted people to be connected with their heritage, he's connected with his heritage. WHat's the problem?

Many people feel the same way about the Irish langauge and have a solid Irish heritage. Some of them even speak Irish fluently and feel the same way.